Jul 18, 2017 Democracy Dies in Darkness Wonkblog Jeff Sessions wants police to take more cash from American citizens By Christopher Ingraham July 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department plans to issue a new directive aimed at ramping up seizure of property, "especially ill-gotten gains from d--- dealers." Speaking at the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis on July 17, Sessions said, "no criminal should be able to keep the proceeds of their illegal activity." (Reuters) Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property. “We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners." Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently. Additionally, many states allow law enforcement agencies to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: In 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more. Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General. The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money. In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice. “Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants. In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practicethat allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute. These types of forfeitures amounted to a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted. Still, criminal justice reform groups on the left and the right cheered the move as a signal that the Obama administration was serious about curtailing forfeiture abuses. In his speech Monday, Attorney General Sessions appeared to specifically call out adoptive forfeitures as an area for potential expansion. “Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.” “This is a federalism issue,” Johnson said. “Any return to federal adoptive forfeitures would “circumvent limitations on civil forfeiture that are imposed by state legislatures … the Department of Justice is saying 'we're going to help state and local law enforcement to get around those reforms.'” The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment.
Jul 18, 2017 Jeff Sessions is a racist prick. He's a total piece of s--- who wants to take this country back decades. If it were up to him, segregation would still be a thing.
Jul 18, 2017 I wonder if this guy wakes up in the morning, looks himself in the mirror, and says "Wow Jeff, you have some great ideas. The people will love you for this." smfh
Jul 18, 2017 Salon Report Advertisement WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2017 04:02 PM AKDT Trump threatens to defy Congress to go after medical marijuana PHILLIP SMITH, ALTERNETSKIP TO COMMENTS (Credit: AP/Elaine Thompson) This article originally appeared on AlterNet. Congress moved to protect medical marijuana by including in its stop-gap federal spending bill a provision barring the Justice Department from using federal funds to go after the drug in states where medical marijuana is legal, but now, President Trump says that doesn’t matter. ADVERTISING inRead invented by Teads Even though Trump signed the spending bill into law last Friday, he included a signing statement objecting to numerous provisions in the bill—including the ban on funds to block the implementation of medical marijuana laws in those states. Despite those state laws, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, which also does not recognize “medical marijuana.” The president said he reserved the right to ignore that provision and left open the possibility the Trump administration could go after the 29 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico where medical marijuana use is allowed. “Division B, section 537 provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories,” Trump noted in the signing statement. “I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The language suggests that Trump could give Attorney General Jeff Sessions his head when it comes to enforcing marijuana policy. Sessions has vowed to crack down on marijuana and has scoffed at arguments for its medical use as “desperate.”
Jul 18, 2017 During the Obama admin, there were way more medical dispensaries being raided. It's a researched fact. Yeah sessions is a a------ and has a negative stance on weed but there's too much science and common knowledge these days for anything drastic to change medical marijuana.
Jul 18, 2017 Sessions thinks marijuana is "slightly less awful" than heroin. He's spoken about ramping up anti-drug enforcement. Science doesn't matter to him. He's a religious nut.
Jul 18, 2017 I believe Res was going off of s--- like this that Sessions does/says on pretty much a weekly basis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-marijuana-providers/?utm_term=.706ec4531430
Jul 18, 2017 I agree with you here. However, acting like marijuana legalization is doomed just because of trump and sessions is false. You guys can reach as far as you want but come on lol More people were prosecuted for marijuana under the Obama admin than the Bush admin even. I'm mainly worried about Trump and Sessions seeing medical marijuana as a threat to their big pharma stocks and taking action against it just for their own profit.
Jul 18, 2017 Yeah one of my stoner friends sends me these kinds of links literally every week getting all paranoid and worried that marijuana will be outlawed again because of the outrageous s--- Sessions says. I'm getting tired of hearing s--- like this.
Jul 18, 2017 I got lefty friends that send me these kinds of links all the time also. I was only giving you that as an example of why res was saying what he did. I also don't think marijuana is in jeopardy. Like you said, If anything they are targeting it due to their ties to big pharma.
Jul 18, 2017 I mean they're definitely not helping legalization advance any quicker either but it comes down to a state law in the end. As long as the majority of citizens in the state vote for legal weed then something will be done about it. Our government doesn't give a f--- about weeds medical value, only the money it can produce. They see the large sum of money legal states are racking in from legalization. I'm convinced big pharma is the biggest problem against legalization. They're shook right now that a natural substance may take over a lot their products. They even tried fighting Kratom and government was going to list Kratom as a controlled substance but enough people and scientists got it reversed.
Jul 18, 2017 Agreed. Big pharma fears legal weed bc they know that people will realize that weed is a better medicinal choice as opposed to their poisonous substances with appalling side effects.
Jul 18, 2017 Marijuana legalization at the federal level will not happen as long as Trump is president. Yes, the obama administration did prosecute more people for marijuana offenses than Bush but their hands were kind of tied. The president can't tell the justice department to ignore federal law. Obama basically told the justice department to use their discretion to go after the crimes that are really hurting people. Holder did a s-----y job of doing that and setting priorities. Also, the Rohrabacher—Farr amendment didn't become law until late 2014. The Obama administration had to lay back on the prosecutions after that.
Jul 19, 2017 JUST IN: DOJ new asset forfeiture policy - police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it's been banned.
